Clivedurdle

What languages were the books of the New Testament originally written in?

Would not the ability to translate and write down stuff actually be very rare, requiring highly trained people?

In any case, who says they were working from written records, might not chunks of it be interpretation of what someone said and then writing it down?

Are there assumptions for example about Aramaic and Hebrew originals that might not actually be the case?

Who says that there is a standard to start with, why is it not a mix and match of different sources, only pulled together much later?

I am not clear that we have dug down to the origins, especially as each book probably has a separate - and in many cases more than one - origin.

Would some of the stuff for example about Nazareth make more sense as the work of outsiders not really understanding how Judaism works, chucking in some odd Jewish phrases for "authenticity" and then allowing myriads of iterations all over the place?

What we have now are the end result of many interelated processes.

S.C.Carlson

Greek.

No. Greek was like the English of its day.

For the synoptic gospels, the wording is too close to be anything other than copying (each other or a common source).

No assumptions about Semitic languages are made.

"Standard"? Who says that?

No.

Stephen

gregor

. . . looks around for judge . . .
(this usually sets off his radar in under two hours)

gstafleu

Oralese?

Gerard Stafleu

Chris Weimer

Stephen answered flawlessly.

judge

Greek was the language of what day in what place?

judge

Excellent question. But we cannot expect thise who have spent years studying NT greek or who make money from teaching NT greek or whose reputation is tied in to greek primacy to be too keen to look at these kind of questions.
Those committed to greek primacy will die off, younger students who are more open minded and not part of the establishment will examine the evidence more openmindedly, with more freethiking and then the evidence and arguments can be subject to proper peer review.

If the Nt was written in Aramaic, then virtually all of NT biblical criticism will have to be re written.

If one has spent years writing books, building websites and teaching students that the Nt was penned in greek, then one is not going to be inclined to want to believe one is wrong and has wasted time effort and money .

judge

Don't know if I got in within two hours.

However as the evidence for Aramaic Primacy has not been subject to peer review, I call upon freethinkers and infidels everywhere to be sceptical about greek primacy until such time.

Down with blind faith, all hail scepticism and the tyrranny of evidence.:devil1:

Tigers!

My goodness, that sort of behaivour is usually only associated with the perfidious theists.

Doug Shaver

So far as I am aware, the currently known evidence is consistent with only two answers: (1) Nobody knows; (2) Greek.

The scholarly consensus favors (2).

The ability to translate requires literacy in two languages. Its rarity would depend entirely on which two languages are being talked about. A majority of ancient people were not literate in any language, but literacy in Greek was not rare in the Near East during NT times, and among the educated classes it seems to have been almost universal.

You'll have to be more specific about which document you're referring to. The New Testament is a compilation of many documents. Some could be original while others are rewrites of earlier documents.

Assumptions made by whom?

And, are you asking whether it is assumed that there were such originals or that there were no such originals? Do you think scholars ought to make either assumption?

I don't understand that question. I can't figure out what kind of standard you are referring to.

I am not clear that any generally respected scholar thinks we have.

Yes, that does seem to be the scholarly consensus. What is still subject to much debate is exactly what those processes were.